The first thing I would recommend to you, Barbara, is to learn to read! In the message you responded to I made a very clear distinction (with an example) between opinion and libelous statements of fact. I stated that opinion is perfectly ok - but libel is not. Why do you object to the necessity of providing substantiation when it is stated as "fact" that a fraud has been committed? Or are you so loosey-goosey that you don't care to sort out facts from opinion?
For instance, how would you like it if I were to make personal accusations about your morality and promiscuousness that were solely my opinion, but represented as fact, and totally false with no substantiation whatsoever, but posted where everybody could read such libelous statements? Moreover, how would you feel if these postings disclosed your real name so that anybody who knows you could react according to what they read regardless of the truth. YOU WOULD BE JUSTIFIABLY IN A FURY!
Corporations and their investors are entitled to fair treatment and protection from libel just as you are. And those who have the resources and can point to damages from such libelous statements are entitled to sue. More of them are now doing just that to protect their managements and companies from those who hide behind masks and who make convincing arguments to disguise opinion as if it is fact.
Although the SEC emphasis is clearly on hyping stocks (there's more of that than hyping negatively to improve the profits on a short position), what makes you think that hyping them to improve the profits of a short position is any different. Impunity? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
And if you think the SEC is not interested in the internet, the following are opening paragraphs of a series of articles in "thestreet.com". It was written almost 2 years ago. Don't you think the SEC has gone much further by now?
Market Features: Talking With the SEC's Top 'Net Cop:
Part One
11/26/96 3:00 PM ET
If the Internet is the Wild West of Wall Street, a frontier where investors, speculators, and scam artists seek fortunes through fair means and foul, John Reed Stark is the Net's sheriff.
Stark is the top Internet enforcer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates U.S. capital markets. During the last two years, the SEC has increased its scrutiny of the Net, filing more than a dozen cases accusing people of promoting stocks or soliciting money for fraudulent investments over the network.
But the commission does more on the Net than just chase bad guys. The SEC says its Internet site is one of the Web's most popular resources for investors, getting 200,000 hits daily. Investors download 2-3 million pages of files from the site each day and the site also receives about 30 email tips daily from investors concerned about scams, frauds and illicit stock promotions.
If you subscribe you can read it all.
You ask why I post on this thread. It's to bring a sense of proportion, balance and inquiry regarding Wexler's motives for making libelous statements of fraud which, when challenged, he has not once answered with a factual response. He's like the disobedient child who when asked why he/she did something they know they mustn't do, responds "because" and continues the same improper behavior. |
